Awesome New Mike Love Article!!

[Andrew G. Doe]

Cam, ol' pal, Brian's firing of Murry was provoked not by any shady business dealings but by a growing desire to keep him from interfering in the studio. Assuming all the accounts are true, it wasn't a reasoned decision. He just snapped.

[bossaroo]

so none of Brian's other co-writers had a problem getting songwriting credit. it makes you wonder if Mike wasn't such a prick he might have gotten the credit he deserved back then. seems no one can stand the guy, Murry was certainly no exception.

[filledeplage]

so none of Brian's other co-writers had a problem getting songwriting credit. it makes you wonder if Mike wasn't such a prick he might have gotten the credit he deserved back then. seems no one can stand the guy, Murry was certainly no exception.

Murry was not on the record with that point of view. Old and interesting RS article.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beach-boys-a-california-saga-part-ii-19711111

Hope it copies.   

[SMiLE Brian]

so none of Brian's other co-writers had a problem getting songwriting credit. it makes you wonder if Mike wasn't such a prick he might have gotten the credit he deserved back then. seems no one can stand the guy, Murry was certainly no exception.

Or Mike didn't write the songs (past the ones in 750,000 settlement offer). Hell, that one might have been exaggerated as well...

[Paul J B]

Add some..... the traveling jukebox as its often referred to began after Endless Summer went huge. The guy that puts out the Endless Summer quarterly provided evidence that it was DENNIS pushing for a return to almost all of the old stuff in their live shows. Not to mention the traveling jukebox went on for years and years and if you think Dennis and Carl were not on board with it you are mistaken. They played what the crowds came to hear.

You've overstated this.  The originator of the "play more oldies" idea (not "almost all of the old stuff" as you paint it) was James William Guercio.  Yes, Dennis Wilson was the conduit for that idea, the messenger (if you will) in communicating it to the rest of the band, and by no account was he an unwilling messenger: he may well have been completely behind the idea of including more oldies.  But show me one history of the Beach Boys that credits the mid-'70s Dennis with enough authority and standing within the band to drive them in a direction they didn't want to go in.  I'll wait while you find one.

And to say that Carl was "on board" with the travelling jukebox years is to ignore the fact that he went solo in the early '80s, at least in part due to dissatisfaction with the direction of the band.  So things aren't nearly as simple as you claim.

I'll take your word for it. That said, I mentioned "evidence" concerning Dennis. I never meant to imply it was only Dennis. My point is that it was not just Mike that turned the Beach Boys live show into an oldies act.

Also, in '82, right after Carl came back from his hiatus, the Beach Boys tightened their live shows and added even more oldies to the standard 90 minute set list. That was with Carl's approval. I remember it coming out of Carl's own mouth. He liked the way they were playing more clusters of songs without breaks in between. Can I find proof...no...because I don't have all of the clippings and sound bites people come up with here, but I'm sure someone can.

I never claimed anything was simple. I don't parade around as a know it all here. All of the guys made a lot of money performing their hits to millions of people over the years. Carl, Dennis and Alan didn't sing what Mike wanted them to sing.....it was not as simple as that either. It is a falsehood that some people refuse to let die. I'm not saying you in particular believe that, but there are those that do.

[CenturyDeprived]

Leave personalities out of it for the moment. Say that writer A and writer B collaborate on a number of songs over a number of years. The music publisher systematically leaves writer B off the credits, with writer A then getting all the money and all the acclaim.

Does writer A have a moral responsibility to writer B to do all that is in his power to rectify the situation? If so, in this case is there evidence that Brian made serious efforts to rectify the ongoing situation?

Especially if one of the writers is the group's Producer and thinks he and his father are co-owners of the publishing company.  

Brian was quite capable of standing up to Murry in very powerful ways and he did, even firing his father. Brian did have control over the crediting, according to Van Dyke Parks, giving VDP full credit on the songs he got credit for.

I'm waiting for your next line of reasoning in this train of thought to be that Brian was a chickensh*t p*ssy if the thought of standing up to and repeatedly pushing a subject with the man who had repeatedly PHYSICALLY beat the crap out of him was something that may have hindered him.

Where the heck is your empathy?

[HeyJude]

The far more interesting question at this stage to me is why Mike has, in the last couple years, really been excessively rattling his saber on the songwriting issue that was rectified in his favor over 20 years ago.

It’s not a mystery why someone would still hold a grudge about it even after all these years. But why in the last few years has it become such a HUGE part of his interviews (once one gets past the PR fluff regarding his ongoing on tour). Every other guy in the band surely has similar business/money/ego-related axes to grind, and often without a lawsuit having been decided in their favor to rectify the issue.

So why is Mike harping on this after he won, meanwhile Brian isn’t harping on Irving/Alamo screwing him, or Murry screwing him? Meanwhile David Marks isn’t harping in every interview on how he got screwed business-wise (the Marks/Stebbins book gets this; Marks got fudged and didn’t have revenue outside of his screwing to fall back on like Mike does). Al isn’t still bringing up the “Family & Friends” lawsuit, or being edged out of the band in ’98 (which, however justified, would be understandable, again based on some info in the Marks/Stebbins book).

I think, however technically lawsuit-free things have been post-C50, the Brian/Mike relationship (and the relationship between those camps) is perplexingly getting worse, and the only person coming out angry is Mike, the guy who made the decision to go back to his own band not work with the other guys, the guy who won the lawsuit he’s still complaining about. So what’s the deal? Mike isolates himself from Brian and Al, and his post-C50 interviews get noticeably progressively more negative, and negative about the DISTANT past. So what’s the deal? He has everything the way he wants, based on his own words. It is really just a reignited old grudge? What reignited it then? And why is he ironically griping about it in an article and interview that delves into why he still seems angry and disenfranchised?

If someone were to tell him, “You won the lawsuit. Nobody, including Brian, claims you didn’t co-write these songs. Nobody seems to be refuting your grip with Murry. So what do you WANT then?”, what would be his response? For a guy that so dismissively shamed Al over 20 years ago for having a chip on his shoulder and not getting over old stuff, for a guy who in the same interview talked about he always looked toward the future, he seems awfully hung up on the songwriting issue.

Is he just annoyed by the Brian camp, and can’t find much of any other issue to complain about? There’s a pattern emerging a bit of really scraping the bottom of the barrel for stuff to be annoyed or angry about. In the RS interview, he seems oddly really upset about some unknown reviewer incorrectly attributing which part of the vocal stack Matt Jardine sings in Brian’s band. Really? What’s next, you don’t like that Al is playing a replica Strat instead of his original?

[HeyJude]

I'll take your word for it. That said, I mentioned "evidence" concerning Dennis. I never meant to imply it was only Dennis. My point is that it was not just Mike that turned the Beach Boys live show into an oldies act.

Also, in '82, right after Carl came back from his hiatus, the Beach Boys tightened their live shows and added even more oldies to the standard 90 minute set list. That was with Carl's approval. I remember it coming out of Carl's own mouth. He liked the way they were playing more clusters of songs without breaks in between. Can I find proof...no...because I don't have all of the clippings and sound bites people come up with here, but I'm sure someone can.

I never claimed anything was simple. I don't parade around as a know it all here. All of the guys made a lot of money performing their hits to millions of people over the years. Carl, Dennis and Alan didn't sing what Mike wanted them to sing.....it was not as simple as that either. It is a falsehood that some people refuse to let die. I'm not saying you in particular believe that, but there are those that do.

In examining the actual setlists from these eras, it was really 1981 after Carl’s departure that a true “oldies” theme to the setlist really started to take hold.

Guercio may have been a proponent of playing hits, but I think that was more about adding some hits back to setlist, as opposed to playing “all oldies.” They didn’t all of a sudden start doing all 60s material in 1975. Into the later 70s, they were still doing “Feel Flows” and “California Saga” and “Sail on Sailor” and stuff like that.

And prior to Carl’s 1981 departure, they were at least keeping “recent” album cuts in the setlist for longer. But in 1981, especially with no new album stuff to add and with nothing from the last FOUR albums staying in the setlist apart from a couple Al tracks, that was when they started resurrecting stuff like “Surfin’ Safari” and “Surfin’” and “409.”

When Carl returned in 1982, they actually made the setlist moderately MORE varied, adding “I Can Hear Music” back in, giving Carl a solo spot with “Rockin’ All Over the World.” They even dusted off “It’s OK” for a little while. They brought “Good Timin’” back into the setlist. Into 1983, they gave Carl a spot for “What You Do To Me”, added stuff like “The Warmth of the Sun”, “You’re So Good to Me”, and “Lookin’ at Tomorrow” into some setlists. Mike did his version of “Imagine.” According to a contemporary interview/article around that time, a slightly more progressive setlist was one of Carl’s terms (along with more rehearsals and not booking any additional casino shows) for coming back into the band.

The “string of songs without a break” sort of medley thing they did to open shows in 1982 is not something they kept for very long, apart from what they typically did in stringing car songs together to close the first set. But the really long medley they did to open shows in 1982 and 1983 (which weren’t really medleys in that they played every song in full; it was just without breaks in between, which to me doesn’t really constitute an “oldies” format exactly) didn’t last very long.

The evidence *does* show that by the later 80s and more into the 90s, Carl apparently did become resigned to not doing particularly interesting setlists (the late ’93 tour being a short-term anomaly), and I think casino shows reared their head not too long after Carl initially succeeded in at least not booking any additional casino shows.

[CenturyDeprived]

The far more interesting question at this stage to me is why Mike has, in the last couple years, really been excessively rattling his saber on the songwriting issue that was rectified in his favor over 20 years ago.

It’s not a mystery why someone would still hold a grudge about it even after all these years. But why in the last few years has it become such a HUGE part of his interviews (once one gets past the PR fluff regarding his ongoing on tour). Every other guy in the band surely has similar business/money/ego-related axes to grind, and often without a lawsuit having been decided in their favor to rectify the issue.

So why is Mike harping on this after he won, meanwhile Brian isn’t harping on Irving/Alamo screwing him, or Murry screwing him? Meanwhile David Marks isn’t harping in every interview on how he got screwed business-wise (the Marks/Stebbins book gets this; Marks got fudged and didn’t have revenue outside of his screwing to fall back on like Mike does). Al isn’t still bringing up the “Family & Friends” lawsuit, or being edged out of the band in ’98 (which, however justified, would be understandable, again based on some info in the Marks/Stebbins book).

I think, however technically lawsuit-free things have been post-C50, the Brian/Mike relationship (and the relationship between those camps) is perplexingly getting worse, and the only person coming out angry is Mike, the guy who made the decision to go back to his own band not work with the other guys, the guy who won the lawsuit he’s still complaining about. So what’s the deal? Mike isolates himself from Brian and Al, and his post-C50 interviews get noticeably progressively more negative, and negative about the DISTANT past. So what’s the deal? He has everything the way he wants, based on his own words. It is really just a reignited old grudge? What reignited it then? And why is he ironically griping about it in an article and interview that delves into why he still seems angry and disenfranchised?

If someone were to tell him, “You won the lawsuit. Nobody, including Brian, claims you didn’t co-write these songs. Nobody seems to be refuting your grip with Murry. So what do you WANT then?”, what would be his response? For a guy that so dismissively shamed Al over 20 years ago for having a chip on his shoulder and not getting over old stuff, for a guy who in the same interview talked about he always looked toward the future, he seems awfully hung up on the songwriting issue.

Is he just annoyed by the Brian camp, and can’t find much of any other issue to complain about? There’s a pattern emerging a bit of really scraping the bottom of the barrel for stuff to be annoyed or angry about. In the RS interview, he seems oddly really upset about some unknown reviewer incorrectly attributing which part of the vocal stack Matt Jardine sings in Brian’s band. Really? What’s next, you don’t like that Al is playing a replica Strat instead of his original?

Because it must be the *only* issue that is vaguely pro-Mike with the added bonus of being vaguely anti-Brian, of all the issues that Mike tries to push, that gets him any perceptible level of empathy from any noticeable amount of people. It seems that the only thing Mike is particularly concerned about nowadays is his reputation, both historically and future.

Complaining about Brian's use of Aututone and a ridiculous quantity of repeated mentions of Brian's drug use didn't seem to get Mike any more "points" in the reputation category, nor did it seem to bring Brian's reputation down any notches, but mentioning something he did legitimately get screwed over for - especially if Brian's inaction can be lumped in as a root cause (never mind looking at pesky facts like Brian being physically afraid of the guy, Murry, in charge... or how it contradicts Mike's own empathetic 2004 interview) might be the only issue he can gain traction on.

It feels like Mike is running a political campaign, and like Trump, loves the poorly-educated.

If there exists an issue that can bring Mike "points" and can simultaneously bring Brian down a few notches in the eyes of the not fully informed, I would not expect Mike to not push that issue to the extreme like Vanilla Ice.

[filledeplage]

I'll take your word for it. That said, I mentioned "evidence" concerning Dennis. I never meant to imply it was only Dennis. My point is that it was not just Mike that turned the Beach Boys live show into an oldies act.

Also, in '82, right after Carl came back from his hiatus, the Beach Boys tightened their live shows and added even more oldies to the standard 90 minute set list. That was with Carl's approval. I remember it coming out of Carl's own mouth. He liked the way they were playing more clusters of songs without breaks in between. Can I find proof...no...because I don't have all of the clippings and sound bites people come up with here, but I'm sure someone can.

I never claimed anything was simple. I don't parade around as a know it all here. All of the guys made a lot of money performing their hits to millions of people over the years. Carl, Dennis and Alan didn't sing what Mike wanted them to sing.....it was not as simple as that either. It is a falsehood that some people refuse to let die. I'm not saying you in particular believe that, but there are those that do.

In examining the actual setlists from these eras, it was really 1981 after Carl’s departure that a true “oldies” theme to the setlist really started to take hold.

Guercio may have been a proponent of playing hits, but I think that was more about adding some hits back to setlist, as opposed to playing “all oldies.” They didn’t all of a sudden start doing all 60s material in 1975. Into the later 70s, they were still doing “Feel Flows” and “California Saga” and “Sail on Sailor” and stuff like that.

And prior to Carl’s 1981 departure, they were at least keeping “recent” album cuts in the setlist for longer. But in 1981, especially with no new album stuff to add and with nothing from the last FOUR albums staying in the setlist apart from a couple Al tracks, that was when they started resurrecting stuff like “Surfin’ Safari” and “Surfin’” and “409.”

When Carl returned in 1982, they actually made the setlist moderately MORE varied, adding “I Can Hear Music” back in, giving Carl a solo spot with “Rockin’ All Over the World.” They even dusted off “It’s OK” for a little while. They brought “Good Timin’” back into the setlist. Into 1983, they gave Carl a spot for “What You Do To Me”, added stuff like “The Warmth of the Sun”, “You’re So Good to Me”, and “Lookin’ at Tomorrow” into some setlists. Mike did his version of “Imagine.” According to a contemporary interview/article around that time, a slightly more progressive setlist was one of Carl’s terms (along with more rehearsals and not booking any additional casino shows) for coming back into the band.

The “string of songs without a break” sort of medley thing they did to open shows in 1982 is not something they kept for very long, apart from what they typically did in stringing car songs together to close the first set. But the really long medley they did to open shows in 1982 and 1983 (which weren’t really medleys in that they played every song in full; it was just without breaks in between, which to me doesn’t really constitute an “oldies” format exactly) didn’t last very long.

The evidence *does* show that by the later 80s and more into the 90s, Carl apparently did become resigned to not doing particularly interesting setlists (the late ’93 tour being a short-term anomaly), and I think casino shows reared their head not too long after Carl initially succeeded in at least not booking any additional casino shows.

Hey Jude -  I think the resurgence began with the end of the Vietnam War, when it become OK in America to relax for the first time in about 15 years.  And there is a difference in connotation between "oldies" and BB "classics" - one is pejorative and one is not.  

As for the venues, in 1982 they were not all casinos, but they were not the enormous stadia or sports arenas that do multi platform entertainment including sports.  Casinos were not as prevalent as they are now.  They were more dinner-theatre multi-use such as convention facilities, on a smaller business model-scale.  They did do medleys but not inconsistent with medleys they had done for years.    

[guitarfool2002]

It's difficult to get beyond the fact that Mike himself pointed the finger of blame directly at Murry, both in depth with specific reasons in 2004 and again in 2011, for the credits issues - and we have direct sources with those comments. Yet in 2016 there are still charges being hung on Brian up to suggesting he was a co-conspirator with Murry in a plan to steal. If there is a call to provide primary, firsthand sources and quotes, we have them available in this case. The finger is pointed directly at Murry. At some point there would naturally be questions as to why the story changed as it looks like it has, even since 2004.

Talking about setlists and the like is one thing, making suggestions toward accusing a man of theft or even conspiracy in a theft is another.

Not that it's relative, but just to point it out: As of 1969 Brian himself had been ripped off for what was at the time a substantial amount of money in those producer's royalties which he was not paid, the band got ripped off on the label "breakage clause" that some rumors say Murry knew about, rumors say Murry withheld payments due to the band out of spite for being fired (coincidentally Murry's spite after being fired was one of the reasons Mike also gave in 2004 for his name being left off the credits), and other details like Murry using the band's money to finance his own solo album which had nothing to do with the Beach Boys. A father possibly ripping off his own sons is a pretty serious issue to both confront and deal with moving forward. Imagine someone putting the figures in front of you and informing you that your own father was anything but 100% honest in how he handled your business. Then 20 years later it also comes out that the legal advice you had been getting looks like it was based on a conflict of interest regarding your song publishing.

Add to that Murry pocketing all the money paid for Sea Of Tunes in 1969. Talk about a rip-off.

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude -  I think the resurgence began with the end of the Vietnam War, when it become OK in America to relax for the first time in about 15 years.  And there is a difference in connotation between "oldies" and BB "classics" - one is pejorative and one is not.  

As for the venues, in 1982 they were not all casinos, but they were not the enormous stadia or sports arenas that do multi platform entertainment including sports.  Casinos were not as prevalent as they are now.  They were more dinner-theatre multi-use such as convention facilities, on a smaller business model-scale.  They did do medleys but not inconsistent with medleys they had done for years.    

The only way to look at what was going on with setlists is to actually view them. I'm not big on trying to tie what songs they were doing into some undefinable, subjective socio-political issue. Sometimes there is evidence of that; I don't see strong evidence in the case of post-1975 BB setlists. Countless factors including that were undoubtedly at play. But I think the band was simply trying to stay contemporary and not be tied down to oldies, and they reached a point where adulation and positive feedback from audiences was (understandably) far easier to take than disinterest and moderate interest in new stuff and deep cuts.

The "hits" almost always went over well in concert, even during the height of Vietnam, and the band never completely removed older songs from the setlist. I would imagine few concerts after 1966/67 didn't include "Good Vibrations." Even during the peak of the Blondie/Ricky era, they were still doing "Fun Fun Fun" and "I Get Around" and "Surfin' USA" and so on.

I think the point at which "oldies" (whether one thinks that is a pejorative term or not) became not just a part of the setlist but a prevalent if not controlling part of the setlist, was 1981. They had no new material, Carl was gone, people didn't like "new" material as much anyway, they had a few Carl-centric gaps to fill (e.g. "Darlin'", "Good Timin'"), so they went back into the well of more "oldies." They even resurrected "Don't Worry Baby" for the first time in a few years, leaving it to Brian to try to sing it.

As for casinos, I didn't make any characterization of what casinos were like back then. Anybody who follows the band or the "casino" industry would be well aware that casinos both were in practice and in perception much more of a cheesy venue back in the 70s and early 80s. Carl didn't like playing them for all of the expected, understandable reasons. They didn't help the group's image, the venue always wanted shortened shows, and the audiences were often indifferent.

Casino shows aren't completely different. The big resort/hotel locations aren't viewed as cheesy anymore. But bands at casino/resort venues still often have shortened sets, and often still play in front of indifferent audiences with comped tickets.

Carl was against them, and then I would imagine a mixture of resignation, mixed with lack of much new material to try to prop up the band as anything but a trademarked hits-performing machine, and perhaps the venues being billed as more respectable, inevitably led to going back to doing those types of casino gigs.

There was also a time when Carl felt the band shouldn't be constantly touring, and therefore they would be able to build up demand and play some larger, more prestigious venues, and be able to do it less often. That literally never happened.

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude -  I think the resurgence began with the end of the Vietnam War, when it become OK in America to relax for the first time in about 15 years.  And there is a difference in connotation between "oldies" and BB "classics" - one is pejorative and one is not.  

As for the venues, in 1982 they were not all casinos, but they were not the enormous stadia or sports arenas that do multi platform entertainment including sports.  Casinos were not as prevalent as they are now.  They were more dinner-theatre multi-use such as convention facilities, on a smaller business model-scale.  They did do medleys but not inconsistent with medleys they had done for years.    

The only way to look at what was going on with setlists is to actually view them. I'm not big on trying to tie what songs they were doing into some undefinable, subjective socio-political issue. Sometimes there is evidence of that; I don't see strong evidence in the case of post-1975 BB setlists. Countless factors including that were undoubtedly at play. But I think the band was simply trying to stay contemporary and not be tied down to oldies, and they reached a point where adulation and positive feedback from audiences was (understandably) far easier to take than disinterest and moderate interest in new stuff and deep cuts.

The "hits" almost always went over well in concert, even during the height of Vietnam, and the band never completely removed older songs from the setlist. I would imagine few concerts after 1966/67 didn't include "Good Vibrations." Even during the peak of the Blondie/Ricky era, they were still doing "Fun Fun Fun" and "I Get Around" and "Surfin' USA" and so on.

I think the point at which "oldies" (whether one thinks that is a pejorative term or not) became not just a part of the setlist but a prevalent if not controlling part of the setlist, was 1981. They had no new material, Carl was gone, people didn't like "new" material as much anyway, they had a few Carl-centric gaps to fill (e.g. "Darlin'", "Good Timin'"), so they went back into the well of more "oldies." They even resurrected "Don't Worry Baby" for the first time in a few years, leaving it to Brian to try to sing it.

As for casinos, I didn't make any characterization of what casinos were like back then. Anybody who follows the band or the "casino" industry would be well aware that casinos both were in practice and in perception much more of a cheesy venue back in the 70s and early 80s. Carl didn't like playing them for all of the expected, understandable reasons. They didn't help the group's image, the venue always wanted shortened shows, and the audiences were often indifferent.

Casino shows aren't completely different. The big resort/hotel locations aren't viewed as cheesy anymore. But bands at casino/resort venues still often have shortened sets, and often still play in front of indifferent audiences with comped tickets.

Carl was against them, and then I would imagine a mixture of resignation, mixed with lack of much new material to try to prop up the band as anything but a trademarked hits-performing machine, and perhaps the venues being billed as more respectable, inevitably led to going back to doing those types of casino gigs.

There was also a time when Carl felt the band shouldn't be constantly touring, and therefore they would be able to build up demand and play some larger, more prestigious venues, and be able to do it less often. That literally never happened.

Hey Jude - "Vietnam" was a long time and back to when the band started.  The attendance did slow for a long while.  It was not until the end of the Vietnam War did the band enjoy a real resurgence, notwithstanding the popularity in the early 70's on the college campuses which became their "new normal."   

Casinos were not universal in the same context.  Each state in the US had to vote on casino gambling and build them.  Vegas and New Jersey were early exceptions.
So for a young person, who has only know casinos as venues, it is misleading.  You often had to go on a cruise ship outside of US territorial waters before the ship's casino would even open up for business. 

Brian's Beach Boys Classics "Selected by Brian Wilson" from 2002, were not called "oldies" but "classics" including Sail on Sailor, Til I Die, alongside the earlier work.
The band might have had "runs" in them, but casino shows are shorter by design for people to get out and spend money at the slot machines and poker tables. Yes, now many are "comped" seats but if you don't show up a lot of them will penalize you for not showing up. 

In the early 80's context, after Carl came back from his solo tour, the shows were largely attended by late twenty and thirty-somethings and not the all-in-the-famiy dynamic they have become now.   People were very happy to see Carl back in the fold.   

[HeyJude]

Hey Jude -  I think the resurgence began with the end of the Vietnam War, when it become OK in America to relax for the first time in about 15 years.  And there is a difference in connotation between "oldies" and BB "classics" - one is pejorative and one is not.  

As for the venues, in 1982 they were not all casinos, but they were not the enormous stadia or sports arenas that do multi platform entertainment including sports.  Casinos were not as prevalent as they are now.  They were more dinner-theatre multi-use such as convention facilities, on a smaller business model-scale.  They did do medleys but not inconsistent with medleys they had done for years.    

The only way to look at what was going on with setlists is to actually view them. I'm not big on trying to tie what songs they were doing into some undefinable, subjective socio-political issue. Sometimes there is evidence of that; I don't see strong evidence in the case of post-1975 BB setlists. Countless factors including that were undoubtedly at play. But I think the band was simply trying to stay contemporary and not be tied down to oldies, and they reached a point where adulation and positive feedback from audiences was (understandably) far easier to take than disinterest and moderate interest in new stuff and deep cuts.

The "hits" almost always went over well in concert, even during the height of Vietnam, and the band never completely removed older songs from the setlist. I would imagine few concerts after 1966/67 didn't include "Good Vibrations." Even during the peak of the Blondie/Ricky era, they were still doing "Fun Fun Fun" and "I Get Around" and "Surfin' USA" and so on.

I think the point at which "oldies" (whether one thinks that is a pejorative term or not) became not just a part of the setlist but a prevalent if not controlling part of the setlist, was 1981. They had no new material, Carl was gone, people didn't like "new" material as much anyway, they had a few Carl-centric gaps to fill (e.g. "Darlin'", "Good Timin'"), so they went back into the well of more "oldies." They even resurrected "Don't Worry Baby" for the first time in a few years, leaving it to Brian to try to sing it.

As for casinos, I didn't make any characterization of what casinos were like back then. Anybody who follows the band or the "casino" industry would be well aware that casinos both were in practice and in perception much more of a cheesy venue back in the 70s and early 80s. Carl didn't like playing them for all of the expected, understandable reasons. They didn't help the group's image, the venue always wanted shortened shows, and the audiences were often indifferent.

Casino shows aren't completely different. The big resort/hotel locations aren't viewed as cheesy anymore. But bands at casino/resort venues still often have shortened sets, and often still play in front of indifferent audiences with comped tickets.

Carl was against them, and then I would imagine a mixture of resignation, mixed with lack of much new material to try to prop up the band as anything but a trademarked hits-performing machine, and perhaps the venues being billed as more respectable, inevitably led to going back to doing those types of casino gigs.

There was also a time when Carl felt the band shouldn't be constantly touring, and therefore they would be able to build up demand and play some larger, more prestigious venues, and be able to do it less often. That literally never happened.

Hey Jude - "Vietnam" was a long time and back to when the band started.  The attendance did slow for a long while.  It was not until the end of the Vietnam War did the band enjoy a real resurgence, notwithstanding the popularity in the early 70's on the college campuses which became their "new normal."  

Casinos were not universal in the same context.  Each state in the US had to vote on casino gambling and build them.  Vegas and New Jersey were early exceptions.
So for a young person, who has only know casinos as venues, it is misleading.  You often had to go on a cruise ship outside of US territorial waters before the ship's casino would even open up for business.  

Brian's Beach Boys Classics "Selected by Brian Wilson" from 2002, were not called "oldies" but "classics" including Sail on Sailor, Til I Die, alongside the earlier work.
The band might have had "runs" in them, but casino shows are shorter by design for people to get out and spend money at the slot machines and poker tables. Yes, now many are "comped" seats but if you don't show up a lot of them will penalize you for not showing up.  

In the early 80's context, after Carl came back from his solo tour, the shows were largely attended by late twenty and thirty-somethings and not the all-in-the-famiy dynamic they have become now.   People were very happy to see Carl back in the fold.  

With truly all due respect, in the interest of making constructive comments toward our discussions, I think these are the types of posts that lead to disagreements where they never existed in the first place. Your post is a mixture of answers to questions nobody asked (nobody was trying to parse “classics” versus “oldies”, so why make it an issue?), non-sequitur statements that have no relation to what anybody was saying (Vietnam? Cruise ships?), and rather pedantic statements about things that nobody disagrees with if not already expressed similar sentiments regarding (e.g. casinos aren’t all the same).

It results in a post that appears, even if it’s not your intent, to be trying REALLY hard to snatch disagreement and pedantry from the jaws of friendly discussion.

I’m not sure if it’s about trying to defend any and all of the BBs against any sort of criticism, even if it’s very INDIRECT criticism for things the actual members might only be tangentially responsible for? They played “oldies” through the years, and sometimes they did it because they were being lazy and artistically uninspired (and thus also uninspiring). I’ve seen enough shows in person and via audio and video recordings to know that sometimes they went through the motions and went on autopilot, and sometimes put on lackluster shows. Even Carl admitted to playing “turkey” shows and going on autopilot, only to be congratulated for it. Separately, Carl’s own review of the 1981 Queen Mary show is perhaps the most scathing commentary ever offered about a BB show from an actual BB.

It's okay to criticize the BBs sometimes. If you don't want to, that's cool. But just saying you don't want to is much easier than trying to concoct elaborate defenses and justifications for EVERY criticism ever offered.  

[HeyJude]

Because it must be the *only* issue that is vaguely pro-Mike with the added bonus of being vaguely anti-Brian, of all the issues that Mike tries to push, that gets him any perceptible level of empathy from any noticeable amount of people. It seems that the only thing Mike is particularly concerned about nowadays is his reputation, both historically and future.

Complaining about Brian's use of Aututone and a ridiculous quantity of repeated mentions of Brian's drug use didn't seem to get Mike any more "points" in the reputation category, nor did it seem to bring Brian's reputation down any notches, but mentioning something he did legitimately get screwed over for - especially if Brian's inaction can be lumped in as a root cause (never mind looking at pesky facts like Brian being physically afraid of the guy, Murry, in charge... And never mind Mike's own empathetic 2004 interview which he probably wishes would not exist) might be the only issue he can gain traction on. It feels like Mike is running a political campaign.

If there exists an issue that can bring Mike "points" and can simultaneously bring Brian down a few notches in the eyes of the not fully informed, I would not expect Mike to not push that issue to the extreme like Vanilla Ice.

Interesting observations. It does seem sometimes like there seems to be a general thought process to “go negative” on Brian, and then try different methods with which to do it.

Indeed, objectively, I would say going back over the songwriting issue is less inflammatory than doing into Brian’s drug use or obviously snippy comments about Brian’s new music, etc.

It’s ironic and interesting that he may be chasing the “songwriting” issue because he is worried about his legacy, but actually injuring his legacy by appearing to be so grudge-bearing about a part of his legacy that is no longer in question (e.g. anybody whose opinion actually matters knows Mike co-wrote all those songs).

[filledeplage]

Hey Jude -  I think the resurgence began with the end of the Vietnam War, when it become OK in America to relax for the first time in about 15 years.  And there is a difference in connotation between "oldies" and BB "classics" - one is pejorative and one is not.  

As for the venues, in 1982 they were not all casinos, but they were not the enormous stadia or sports arenas that do multi platform entertainment including sports.  Casinos were not as prevalent as they are now.  They were more dinner-theatre multi-use such as convention facilities, on a smaller business model-scale.  They did do medleys but not inconsistent with medleys they had done for years.    

The only way to look at what was going on with setlists is to actually view them. I'm not big on trying to tie what songs they were doing into some undefinable, subjective socio-political issue. Sometimes there is evidence of that; I don't see strong evidence in the case of post-1975 BB setlists. Countless factors including that were undoubtedly at play. But I think the band was simply trying to stay contemporary and not be tied down to oldies, and they reached a point where adulation and positive feedback from audiences was (understandably) far easier to take than disinterest and moderate interest in new stuff and deep cuts.

The "hits" almost always went over well in concert, even during the height of Vietnam, and the band never completely removed older songs from the setlist. I would imagine few concerts after 1966/67 didn't include "Good Vibrations." Even during the peak of the Blondie/Ricky era, they were still doing "Fun Fun Fun" and "I Get Around" and "Surfin' USA" and so on.

I think the point at which "oldies" (whether one thinks that is a pejorative term or not) became not just a part of the setlist but a prevalent if not controlling part of the setlist, was 1981. They had no new material, Carl was gone, people didn't like "new" material as much anyway, they had a few Carl-centric gaps to fill (e.g. "Darlin'", "Good Timin'"), so they went back into the well of more "oldies." They even resurrected "Don't Worry Baby" for the first time in a few years, leaving it to Brian to try to sing it.

As for casinos, I didn't make any characterization of what casinos were like back then. Anybody who follows the band or the "casino" industry would be well aware that casinos both were in practice and in perception much more of a cheesy venue back in the 70s and early 80s. Carl didn't like playing them for all of the expected, understandable reasons. They didn't help the group's image, the venue always wanted shortened shows, and the audiences were often indifferent.

Casino shows aren't completely different. The big resort/hotel locations aren't viewed as cheesy anymore. But bands at casino/resort venues still often have shortened sets, and often still play in front of indifferent audiences with comped tickets.

Carl was against them, and then I would imagine a mixture of resignation, mixed with lack of much new material to try to prop up the band as anything but a trademarked hits-performing machine, and perhaps the venues being billed as more respectable, inevitably led to going back to doing those types of casino gigs.

There was also a time when Carl felt the band shouldn't be constantly touring, and therefore they would be able to build up demand and play some larger, more prestigious venues, and be able to do it less often. That literally never happened.

Hey Jude - "Vietnam" was a long time and back to when the band started.  The attendance did slow for a long while.  It was not until the end of the Vietnam War did the band enjoy a real resurgence, notwithstanding the popularity in the early 70's on the college campuses which became their "new normal."  

Casinos were not universal in the same context.  Each state in the US had to vote on casino gambling and build them.  Vegas and New Jersey were early exceptions.
So for a young person, who has only know casinos as venues, it is misleading.  You often had to go on a cruise ship outside of US territorial waters before the ship's casino would even open up for business.  

Brian's Beach Boys Classics "Selected by Brian Wilson" from 2002, were not called "oldies" but "classics" including Sail on Sailor, Til I Die, alongside the earlier work.
The band might have had "runs" in them, but casino shows are shorter by design for people to get out and spend money at the slot machines and poker tables. Yes, now many are "comped" seats but if you don't show up a lot of them will penalize you for not showing up.  

In the early 80's context, after Carl came back from his solo tour, the shows were largely attended by late twenty and thirty-somethings and not the all-in-the-famiy dynamic they have become now.   People were very happy to see Carl back in the fold.  

With truly all due respect, in the interest of making constructive comments toward our discussions, I think these are the types of posts that lead to disagreements where they never existed in the first place. Your post is a mixture of answers to questions nobody asked (nobody was trying to parse “classics” versus “oldies”, so why make it an issue?), non-sequitur statements that have no relation to what anybody was saying (Vietnam? Cruise ships?), and rather pedantic statements about things that nobody disagrees with if not already expressed similar sentiments regarding (e.g. casinos aren’t all the same).

It results in a post that appears, even if it’s not your intent, to be trying REALLY hard to snatch disagreement and pedantry from the jaws of friendly discussion.

I’m not sure if it’s about trying to defend any and all of the BBs against any sort of criticism, even if it’s very INDIRECT criticism for things the actual members might only be tangentially responsible for? They played “oldies” through the years, and sometimes they did it because they were being lazy and artistically uninspired (and thus also uninspiring). I’ve seen enough shows in person and via audio and video recordings to know that sometimes they went through the motions and went on autopilot, and sometimes put on lackluster shows. Even Carl admitted to playing “turkey” shows and going on autopilot, only to be congratulated for it. Separately, Carl’s own review of the 1981 Queen Mary show is perhaps the most scathing commentary ever offered about a BB show from an actual BB.

It's okay to criticize the BBs sometimes. If you don't want to, that's cool. But just saying you don't want to is much easier than trying to concoct elaborate defense for EVERY criticism ever offered.  

Hey Jude - when you look at setlist, I hope you are starting from those that only have 11 songs in the 60's.  It is not "defense" it is putting the era in an appropriate context. And, I just checked some of those setlist from the early 80's (which I saw personally) and can tell you that when you go from 4 acts with 11 BB songs to one act, with 25-30 songs, it is not unimportant.  Now the theater shows have up to 50 songs in the setlist and there is no opening act. You cannot tell from the setlist if there was an opening act, which would automatically reduce the amount of work covered in a show.  

If you are going to discuss casinos as a BB venue,  it might be helpful to qualify the years  that are associated with them.  They are a new phenomenon, outside of Vegas and New Jersey as is the format that the band uses.  And there is not a profession on the planet that does not resort to auto-pilot from time to time for whatever reason.   I only saw one show that I would consider auto-pilot.  

And this was the thread for the RS article.  

[Debbie KL]

It's difficult to get beyond the fact that Mike himself pointed the finger of blame directly at Murry, both in depth with specific reasons in 2004 and again in 2011, for the credits issues - and we have direct sources with those comments. Yet in 2016 there are still charges being hung on Brian up to suggesting he was a co-conspirator with Murry in a plan to steal. If there is a call to provide primary, firsthand sources and quotes, we have them available in this case. The finger is pointed directly at Murry. At some point there would naturally be questions as to why the story changed as it looks like it has, even since 2004.

Talking about setlists and the like is one thing, making suggestions toward accusing a man of theft or even conspiracy in a theft is another.

Not that it's relative, but just to point it out: As of 1969 Brian himself had been ripped off for what was at the time a substantial amount of money in those producer's royalties which he was not paid, the band got ripped off on the label "breakage clause" that some rumors say Murry knew about, rumors say Murry withheld payments due to the band out of spite for being fired (coincidentally Murry's spite after being fired was one of the reasons Mike also gave in 2004 for his name being left off the credits), and other details like Murry using the band's money to finance his own solo album which had nothing to do with the Beach Boys. A father possibly ripping off his own sons is a pretty serious issue to both confront and deal with moving forward. Imagine someone putting the figures in front of you and informing you that your own father was anything but 100% honest in how he handled your business. Then 20 years later it also comes out that the legal advice you had been getting looks like it was based on a conflict of interest regarding your song publishing.

Add to that Murry pocketing all the money paid for Sea Of Tunes in 1969. Talk about a rip-off.

It was a tough time in late 1969 for Brian, as you noted. He was bright-eyed and fun whenever discussing music, dead serious when it came to doing the music (even auditioning a young singer with Bacharach tunes), but when it came to business, he was nowhere to be found.  I think we realize why.  It's amazing how many decades it took to get Brian the proper legal and medical people - tragic really.

[bossaroo]

so none of Brian's other co-writers had a problem getting songwriting credit. it makes you wonder if Mike wasn't such a prick he might have gotten the credit he deserved back then. seems no one can stand the guy, Murry was certainly no exception.

Murry was not on the record with that point of view. Old and interesting RS article.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beach-boys-a-california-saga-part-ii-19711111

Hope it copies.   

if anything, this article bolsters my contention that no one can really stand Mike Love. nowhere does Murry defend or say he enjoys Mike's company or likes Mike as a person. Mike comes across as vulgar and stupid among other things: chasing whores in Europe (being led on and ripped off numerous times and even almost getting killed), nearly being fired from the band, incapable of playing an instrument, etc.

thanks for the "cannon fodder" 

[Paul J B]

I'll take your word for it. That said, I mentioned "evidence" concerning Dennis. I never meant to imply it was only Dennis. My point is that it was not just Mike that turned the Beach Boys live show into an oldies act.

Also, in '82, right after Carl came back from his hiatus, the Beach Boys tightened their live shows and added even more oldies to the standard 90 minute set list. That was with Carl's approval. I remember it coming out of Carl's own mouth. He liked the way they were playing more clusters of songs without breaks in between. Can I find proof...no...because I don't have all of the clippings and sound bites people come up with here, but I'm sure someone can.

I never claimed anything was simple. I don't parade around as a know it all here. All of the guys made a lot of money performing their hits to millions of people over the years. Carl, Dennis and Alan didn't sing what Mike wanted them to sing.....it was not as simple as that either. It is a falsehood that some people refuse to let die. I'm not saying you in particular believe that, but there are those that do.

In examining the actual setlists from these eras, it was really 1981 after Carl’s departure that a true “oldies” theme to the setlist really started to take hold.

Guercio may have been a proponent of playing hits, but I think that was more about adding some hits back to setlist, as opposed to playing “all oldies.” They didn’t all of a sudden start doing all 60s material in 1975. Into the later 70s, they were still doing “Feel Flows” and “California Saga” and “Sail on Sailor” and stuff like that.

And prior to Carl’s 1981 departure, they were at least keeping “recent” album cuts in the setlist for longer. But in 1981, especially with no new album stuff to add and with nothing from the last FOUR albums staying in the setlist apart from a couple Al tracks, that was when they started resurrecting stuff like “Surfin’ Safari” and “Surfin’” and “409.”

When Carl returned in 1982, they actually made the setlist moderately MORE varied, adding “I Can Hear Music” back in, giving Carl a solo spot with “Rockin’ All Over the World.” They even dusted off “It’s OK” for a little while. They brought “Good Timin’” back into the setlist. Into 1983, they gave Carl a spot for “What You Do To Me”, added stuff like “The Warmth of the Sun”, “You’re So Good to Me”, and “Lookin’ at Tomorrow” into some setlists. Mike did his version of “Imagine.” According to a contemporary interview/article around that time, a slightly more progressive setlist was one of Carl’s terms (along with more rehearsals and not booking any additional casino shows) for coming back into the band.

The “string of songs without a break” sort of medley thing they did to open shows in 1982 is not something they kept for very long, apart from what they typically did in stringing car songs together to close the first set. But the really long medley they did to open shows in 1982 and 1983 (which weren’t really medleys in that they played every song in full; it was just without breaks in between, which to me doesn’t really constitute an “oldies” format exactly) didn’t last very long.

The evidence *does* show that by the later 80s and more into the 90s, Carl apparently did become resigned to not doing particularly interesting setlists (the late ’93 tour being a short-term anomaly), and I think casino shows reared their head not too long after Carl initially succeeded in at least not booking any additional casino shows.

I can vouch for most all of what you said there. I was at a lot of those shows and that's pretty much how things played out.

When the Beach Boys really got stale for me was heading into the 90's and the cheerleaders and all of that. No Dennis, no new albums, no fun anymore. I never tired of their albums but I kind of gave up on the live shows . By this point their peak was 30 years ago so whatever members wanted to sing what with whom didn't really matter. The history was already written. Only a handful of guys like me would have wanted them to play Till I Die or Marcella over Help Me Rhonda or Surfin' USA at the Wisconsin State Fair in the 1990's. That's just the way it was.

2012 was priceless.

[The LEGENDARY OSD]

so none of Brian's other co-writers had a problem getting songwriting credit. it makes you wonder if Mike wasn't such a prick he might have gotten the credit he deserved back then. seems no one can stand the guy, Murry was certainly no exception.

Murry was not on the record with that point of view. Old and interesting RS article.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beach-boys-a-california-saga-part-ii-19711111

Hope it copies.   

if anything, this article bolsters my contention that no one can really stand Mike Love. nowhere does Murry defend or say he enjoys Mike's company or likes Mike as a person. Mike comes across as vulgar and stupid among other things: chasing whores in Europe (being led on and ripped off numerous times and even almost getting killed), nearly being fired from the band, incapable of playing an instrument, etc.

thanks for the "cannon fodder" 

 

[Doo Dah]

Something came to me tonight. True story.

My senior class high school yearbook had some photos of cheerleaders and majorettes with the caption:

"And the northern girls, with the way they kiss
 they keep their boyfriends warm at night."
 - Brian Wilson


Hey Mike! You've been ripped off by the staff of Shingas, 1977!

[CenturyDeprived]

Something came to me tonight. True story.

My senior class high school yearbook had some photos of cheerleaders and majorettes with the caption:

"And the northern girls, with the way they kiss
 they keep their boyfriends warm at night."
 - Brian Wilson


Hey Mike! You've been ripped off by the staff of Shingas, 1977!

And if Mike had gotten credit all along, this yearbook would surely have had the same caption. Just like if the caption had instead quoted In My Room, the folks would have just assumed Brian alone wrote it, and it's doubtful they'd know the (properly all along) credited non-Mike cowriter. Too many beloved BB songs were written NOT by Mike for it to be any sort of no-brainer that Mike would just come to people's minds as THE magical cowriting guy he so desperately wants to be known as, even if Mike's credits were correct all along. He'd simply be known as one of many, and one whose ideas, while often good, occasionally great, were often eclipsed by others.

If Mike wants to blame someone, perhaps he can start complaining to the corpse of the brilliant Derek Taylor. I don't know why he doesn't start ragging on Taylor - I'm serious. Brian's well-deserved genius rep was gonna FAR, FAR overshadow Mike's lyrical contributions regardless if everyone knew of Mike's contributions all along. I really don't see how an always-credited Mike would be less any pissed about being overshadowed by Brian. People would still by and large think his methods of questioning Van's lyrics (rightful for him to do so or not) equated to a hare-brained move devoid of the thought of repercussions... and the tons of other unrelated-to-undercrediting reasons for Mike's rep would remain unchanged. I truly believe this, and it boggles the mind if Mike really, truly thinks otherwise. If people around him are trying to convince him otherwise, they're trying to make him feel better, but it is mighty sad and unrealistic.

I really blame a team of yes-men for inadvertently making Mike embittered the way he is today. People like to say the Wilsons are gullible, but if Mike believes that the crediting issue is of any real consequence to his negative rep on the whole, he's the most gullible guy in the band, and I sincerely feel bad for him.

Was Denny the ONLY guy in Mike's sphere who ever talked realistically to Mike? Has Mike removed every person close to him over the years who would have tried to give him a dose of reality? It would seem that way. 

[Andrew G. Doe]

I think casino shows reared their head not too long after Carl initially succeeded in at least not booking any additional casino shows.

Tricky to pin down, as we don't know which shows were already booked when Carl returned in 1982. With that caveat...

May  2 - Jack Murphy Stadium, San Diego CA (Carl's "official" return)

July 15 - MGM Grand, Las Vegas NV (first of seven dates)

September 8 - Superstar Theater at Resorts International Hotel Casino, Atlantic City NJ (first of four shows in two days)

December 27 -  Harrah’s Tahoe, Stateline NV (first of seven dates)

So, certainly within eight months of his return, Carl had agreed - happily or not - to do casinos.

[filledeplage]

so none of Brian's other co-writers had a problem getting songwriting credit. it makes you wonder if Mike wasn't such a prick he might have gotten the credit he deserved back then. seems no one can stand the guy, Murry was certainly no exception.

Murry was not on the record with that point of view. Old and interesting RS article.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/beach-boys-a-california-saga-part-ii-19711111

Hope it copies.   

if anything, this article bolsters my contention that no one can really stand Mike Love. nowhere does Murry defend or say he enjoys Mike's company or likes Mike as a person. Mike comes across as vulgar and stupid among other things: chasing whores in Europe (being led on and ripped off numerous times and even almost getting killed), nearly being fired from the band, incapable of playing an instrument, etc.

thanks for the "cannon fodder" 

 

Gentlemen - My apologies for not being clear as to why I put the link in.  It was to show in the first section, that Murry had some nice things to say about his nephew.  Around paragraph nine.

"When Brian was eight years old, he sang in a concert, singing one of Mike Love's songs." 

A public concert?

"Well my sister, Mike's mother, Mrs. Love, Emily Love - loved music.  She didn't play piano or anything but she loved music and gave this concert in my honor as a songwriter. And they featured several of my songs--she even hired a trio, a musical group, to play my songs for this concert.

This was for an audience?

"Yes, it was for school friends and teachers and friends of hers. And Mike Love wrote a song called "The Old Soldier," about a soldier that died you know in the war?  He was only nine and a half when he wrote it.  I heard it over at my sisters house, and I thought it was just darling, But I heard it as a hymn, it was a song in hymn form...

...So when he was eight years old I bought Brian his first suit with long pants, and he sang both versions of Mike's song at this concert. We taught him both sets of lyrics, Mike's and mine, and he brought the house down."

Sorry I was not clear when I posted the link. 

[Bill30022]

The more I think about it, the more I believe that Mike's biggest issue is the lack of respect he gets. Let's face it - of all the Beach Boys he is the least respected within the music industry.

When Brian wanted to become more serious he utilized other singers and lyricists.

He has worked his butt off to keep the brand going (whether that is a good thing or a bad thing is another issue) and during C50 the big round of applause goes to Brian.

He needs to tear Brian down in order that enhance his reputation as a part of the Beach Boys legacy.

He needs to tear down peers (RRHOF) in order to build himself up as performer when compared to Jagger or Springsteen.

"Picese Brothers" is to remind everyone of his close friendship with George Harrison.

He inspired "Back In the USSR".

Since " Kokomo" is the largest selling BB single it is their greatest achievement.

Mike believes that he is the equal of Brian (and Springsteen and Jagger) and it grates on him that nobody else sees it.